I want to point something out about wealthy people

[cali]

More of those with incomes over $200,000 a year voted for Obama than McCain. In other words, they voted against their ostensible, immediate economic interests.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/05/politics/main4572555.shtml

Yes, there are lots of wealthy people who are corrupt fuckers who are waging class war against working Americans of moderate and low incomes, but smearing all well to do and wealthy people as being against the common interest, is just inaccurate.

Condemning the crooks on Wall Street is justified. Condemning all people with money isn't.

[lonestarnot]

1. I have no love for either!

[cali]

2. Why not just judge people on who they are and what they do?

[lonestarnot]

4. Because I was not put here to be a judge of others, but I do know what I like and what I don't.

[cali]

8. lol. your first comment in this thread IS a judgment.

So is the one I'm responding to.

[lonestarnot]

12. It was not! It was an observation of like or dislike. Not a person judgment as you have

incorrectly stated.

[anigbrowl]

40. One observes others. One expresses oneself.

you're full of it.

[lonestarnot]

105. Well thank you.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

17. So...

following your logic - someone who is a successful Democrat who makes over $200,000 a year, you know already you do not like them.

That's brilliant.

[CRF450]

18. Maybe jealousy?

I wouldn't even care if I was taxed a bit more if I was making $200k+ per year. In the end the person making that much is still much better off than the middle class or working poor.

[lonestarnot]

31. Someone always steps on someone to become rich and fuck your logic Gilli.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Waiting For Everyman]

62. self- delete

moved, not intended here

[Terran]

52. That's as bad a fallacy as any right-wing crap I've ever heard.

What about someone who writes a great novel and gets rich? What about the lucky lottery winner? What about a good person who starts out by organizing their community, is admired by people and wins political offices, and ends up getting elected President of the United States? (and yes, the Obama's are "rich", don't try to deny it). Did all those people step on somebody to get where they are?

You seem really bitter. Maybe money would cheer you up. :crazy:

[lonestarnot]

106. No the Obamas are not rich. Are you sure you belong here?

[Terran]

117. 1. You are wrong, and 2. ...

your response is downright idiotic, given that I've been posting here twice as long as you have.

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2008/09/08/daily103.html

Check the link--Barack Obama's self-declared assets total up to 1.1 million. And apparently it's only you who think that makes him a bad person, since that's what you're accusing me of. Idiot.

[lonestarnot]

132. Oh so now opinion can only be asserted via time in senority, Has DU started a union?

Woohoo! But you're still an idiot.

[Terran]

133. I was referring

to your idiotic questioning of my belonging here, merely because I said the Obamas are rich. And don't bother responding to this, you're on Ignore permanently.

[Rebubula]

54. Such horseshit

So...how are those stereotypes working out for you???

As someone that does, in fact, make a lot of money - it was done by borrowing myself into debt to get skills and certifications (IT field) and then working my ass off for years.

I also spend lots of time working with mentally disabled children and at risk teens (if you have an intelligent high-risk teen - IT is the field to be in. I was a delinquent drop out but I had a brain - get some certs and get a job) . Not all rich people suck.

Moreover...having grown up poor (mountains of N. Georgia) - I can tell you that stepping on people to get ahead is not an indigenous trait of the wealthy. I met alot of rich people that are dicks and a lot of poor people that were just as bad.

But, if hating an entire swath of people makes you feel better - well...have at you. All that hate will burn you up.

[lonestarnot]

100. And I see none of your admissions on who you pissed on to get all of those credentials fuckwad.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

60. Happy New Year!

What a fucktared statement-

yes - always - to be a success it is ALWAYS --- blah, blah, blah...

Sure it is.

Hard working cancer researcher, surgeon, medical school professor friend of mine who is working to cure breast cancer is a real ass. :eyes:

[lonestarnot]

98. Whatever ignoranus! I'm not wasting my time on this with you.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

110. Ha!

You hate all people who you "think" are wealthy --- Hint - $200,000 around where I live is not considered wealthy - and we are far from making that much - But some of my friends do -

One is a pilot for UPS - he was a flier in the military - he has 3 kids and a wife and voted for Obama - who did he "step on" to get where he is????

He went through the military to learn how to fly a jet and now he reaps the rewards... What an ass he is.

Another friend was a blackhawk pilot - he is now working for a computer company in SF - He voted for Obama -

We are the poor folks in this neighborhood but I do not begrudge any of them - Not a one - I see hard working people who made some good choices.

Not everyone who earns more than the average person is an ax murderer. Some of them are good people. That is all I am saying -

Oh and Ignoranus... that is not a word.

[Waiting For Everyman]

65. Actually you're right.

There are exceptions, which means nothing. There are exceptions to anything which doesn't negate the broad truth of other sorts of overall conslusions either.

[lonestarnot]

103. Then there is always the lottery winners

:D

[JuniperLea]

75. Not always...

Some people are born into wealth, and still others acquire their wealth by doing good things for others.

You can't say always or never about anything... except maybe fire and water... water is always wet... fire is always hot.

[onenote]

78. So, despite you avatar, you really don't like Dennis K.

After all, he earns $169,000 plus as a senator and his annual financial disclosure forms indicate that he earns an additional amount between $100 K and $1 million from 'royalties'.

[lonestarnot]

97. If you could read, and read the thread you would see that I indicated down thread that 200K is not

rich.

[onenote]

101. well, since you started out criticizing anyone who makes more than $200,000

you'll have to excuse me if you've decided to move the target around.

So what is the exact dollar figure that transforms someone from being worthy of your avatar to receiving your disdain?

[lonestarnot]

104. Rich plane owning yaht driving new suit every day of the week because they wiped their ass on yester

day's suit, real disdain for those. I don't know the exact dollar amount, but it is 200K.

[onenote]

107. well, by that definition, I suspect you and Cali actually are more in agreement than you realize

[lonestarnot]

111. I don't care.

:P :rofl: :hug:

[rhett o rick]

84. War is war. Don't you realize we are at war???? The wealthy are killing us. Granted there may be

some that sympathize with us poor, but that's about it, sympathy. War is hell Cali, and we are in hell. Our retirements have been stolen and our jobs are gone, health insurance is too expensive and so are our medicines. There is no help in site. The wealthy have unlimited wealth to fight us. In tens years there will be no middle class. and you want us to worry about hurting someones feelings???

[lonestarnot]

112. And no response. Figures.

[rhett o rick]

113. Sorry what????

[aikoaiko]

30. Will it be hard onyou not loving the Obamas.

:shrug:

[lonestarnot]

32. what you rich too?

[aikoaiko]

39. Nope, just someone who has love for eveyone who voted for Obama

200,000 k is middle class, maybe upper middle class in a lot of US, but not the enemy that's for sure.

[lonestarnot]

49. 200k is not rich.

[Terran]

53. the hell it's not (n/t)

[AspenRose]

55. Depends on where you live

In California and on the East Coast, it's middle class.

Cali, I was pleasantly surprised at the number of Obama/Biden signs I saw in the well-to-do sections of DC before the election.

[CTyankee]

61. It also depends on your lifestyle. We live in New Haven, CT but

both of us had parents who went throughthe Depression and we were taught thrift by them. Having older, paid off cars, a low mortgage (because we bought a more modest home), and no high living has paid off. Granted, we'd be richer if we lived in a poorer state with lower taxes and lower prices. But we'd miss out on all the cultural opportunities of living in a city with a world class university. I cannot tell you how many free lectures I have attended at Yale that were open to the public. Some really great public figures come here to give talks and Yale lets everybody come! Plus, you can always hop on a train for a day at one of the museums in NYC!

[BoneDaddy]

41. Wow that seems very unfair

to think that way. The vast majority of wealthy have earned their money fairly. Just as all poor are not shifty and lazy, all rich are not corrupt, greedy and thieves.

[lonestarnot]

51. Are you for fucking real?

"vast majority of wealthy have earned their money" my ass!

[BoneDaddy]

134. Well you can be that obviously bitter

person you appear to be.

Yes, the vast majority of wealthy have worked for it. You should try it.

[onenote]

77. delete dupe

[Sex Pistol]

129. It doesn't sound like you have much love for anyone or anything.

That is unfortunate.

[Thothmes]

3. Does not matter

Tax the hell out of them. We need to pay for many must haves.

[cali]

5. agreed.

Taxes on the wealthy should be raised and corporate loopholes closed.

[Midlodemocrat]

6. Every person I know in that income bracket voted for Obama.

And, a few earn over twice that amount. Still voted for Obama. Most also voted against Bush. Twice.

Might just be the crowd I know, but it's still pretty heartwarming.

[cali]

7. It's not just the crowd you know.

Obama gained 15% more votes from this demographic than Kerry.

[Midlodemocrat]

9. Doesn't hurt that my family lives in NYC and SF, either, LOL.

[saltpoint]

10. Take the Kennedys, for example. Plenty of dough but a legacy of public service

to others.

[dysfunctional press]

63. you mean like when joe helped people get alcohol during prohibition...?

a legacy of public service.

[whathehell]

88. I guess you didn't like FDR much, huh?

[dysfunctional press]

89. why would you say that?

:shrug:

i didn't even say or imply whether or not i liked ol' joe.

[whathehell]

92. Of course you did.

[dysfunctional press]

96. okay, i'll bite- what's my opinion of joe kennedy?

:shrug:

[whathehell]

99. When the poster brought up the public service of the Kennedys, you

obviously challenged that by mentioning Joe's rum-running days...Please...The public service came from Joseph Jr.(killed in WWII) Jack, Bobby and Ted..in addition to Eunice (Special Olympics) and Robert Kennedy Jr.

..See?:think:

[dysfunctional press]

108. did you happen to glance at my avatar?

you choose YOUR public service, and i'll choose mine.

[whathehell]

126. Yeah...Uh huh..

that's the ticket:crazy:

[saltpoint]

115. I support any effort to derail Prohibition, whether in a very famous

clan like the Kennedys or my own.

It was a damned stupid law, rooted in hyper-moralist bigotry and stupidity, and I say good for anybody who got the booze to the customers.

[dysfunctional press]

119. like i said...

"a legacy of public service"

[saltpoint]

120. ...and on the right side of the issue, truth be told.

There was no way Prohibition was a sustainable concept.

It created far more problems than it solved.

I reiterate that the Kennedy legacy is a service legacy, and you can grocery-list the issues members of their family have advanced in the names of people who have far less clout and voice in the halls of Congress.

Their big bucks are eclipsed by their big hearts.

That matters.

[dysfunctional press]

121. and caroline as a senator would have 2 years to prove herself to the voters...

if she gets the seat, and wants to keep it, she'll have to defend it twice- in a special election in two years, and then in the regular election for the seat in 2012.
and yes, her family name has earned her the chance to prove herself.

[saltpoint]

123. Is it your view that the Kennedy name would be a minus for her re-election

to that seat?

It's mine that it would be a huge plus. In fundraising, in organization fervor, and not least, in lifting many other boats.

Blue boats.

I'm strongly behind Paterson's choice, no matter who it is. I like Paterson, I trust his judgment, and I'll stick up for him on this appointment no matter who it turns out to be.

But I'm rooting strongly for CKS.

[dysfunctional press]

124. i'm not at all familiar with workings of the psyche of the new york electorate...

or how they would collectively view caroline in the (capitol) city.
obviously, hillary was not seen as a "carpetbagger" and used her name (well- technically, Bill's name to get elected to her seat without holding any previous elected office- so i see no reason why caroline won't be able to take advantage of her name AND her residency to do the same. and she'd at least have 2 years to prove herself "worthy" of the seat and the legacy to the voters. she'd probably also have the cash to make two runs in two years.

[saltpoint]

125. I think Gov. Paterson may emerge as a major player in the next few

years.

No matter which potential appointment he makes, I think he's well-positioned to bulldoze that worthless thug Rudy Giuliani, who's said to be interested in the Governor's job.

I have no scientific evidence, but I think Rudy thinks he can waltz in and beat Paterson.

And it's my hunch that Paterson disagrees.

[dysfunctional press]

128. another epic fail by ghouliani would be too sweet...he's probably only got one more in him.

before time starts to really take it's toll.

[Clovis Sangrail]

11. 'enlightened self interest'

The economy is already fucked and it looked like a sure bet McCain would finish it off.
Higher taxes might be less than desirable to them but that's better than the prospect of no income to tax.

[Medusa]

13. It's what we do here at DU

write off entire segments of the population (people who drive SUV's, or anything other than a hybrid for instance, The South, Christians, etc.)

[pampango]

15. But we do that while we condemn people who write off other segments of the population, like union

workers, minorities, gays, etc.). Oh, the irony. :)

[WinkyDink]

21. Yeah, real ironic to support the victims of bias, prejudice, and hazardous working conditions.

[pampango]

22. The support is not ironic (it's the reason we are liberals), but the method is ironic,

if we stereotype and use guilt by association, while condemning others for using the same tactics.

[BoneDaddy]

136. Actually many DUers are just like

Free Republicans. Large sweeping generalizations about white people, wealthy people, men, business people etc just as the Freepers make about people of color, the poor etc.

It is black and white kindergarten thinking.

[DCKit]

14. Reaganonomics was dealt a death-blow the second the wealthy realized that re-regulation...

is the only thing that might salvage their fortunes. They were perfectly happy voting/supporting Republic until the schemes, scams and bubbles caught up to them and their money began evaporating.

Given how many knew that Madoff's (and I suspect many hedge funds and all derivatives) returns were "too good to be true", they should (not will, but should) be more worried about avoiding prosecution under the RICO statutes than recovering their ill-gotten gains.

However, given that you'll do a hell of a lot longer stretch for a bag of weed than ripping off tens of thousands of retirees of every last cent, I'm not too hopeful that the current system is going to change much.

[EstimatedProphet]

16. But how many of the superrich did?

$200,000 is peanuts to the superrich, and they are the real ones waging class war.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

19. BTW

I wish we made $200,000 here on Gilligan's Island. The amount of the tax increase for me would be negligible compared to the added income.

Since when is being able to pay off your house and go on a vacation once in a while a crime?

Hating a person for being successful is the lamest thing yet here. Right up there with hating me for driving a 10 year old, Japanese mid-sized SUV.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WinkyDink]

20. "$200,000" is not the group I abominate. Try EXCESS wealth.Try $10M NYC apartment wealth.

300-ft yachts wealth. Riviera-second-home wealth.
We're not talking 2 Plasma-screen TV's here.

http://www.luxuryhomemagazine.com/
http://www.yachtingmagazine.com/yachting/boatreviews/article/0,24579,1547754,00.html
http://www.millionairesconcierge.com/?gclid=CMCbvfjhwpcCFRhhnAod1TEwSQ

[Bill McBlueState]

23. This is like the "not all Christians are the same" posts

Nearly all DUers understand that wealthy Democrats exist, and constently being reminded of it by so-called voices of reason isn't really addressing the root cause of our antipathy toward the privileged.

[Cleita]

24. Large incomes do not define wealth.

Accumulated assets do.

[leftofthedial]

25. we need to be precise when defining "wealthy"

"income over $200,000" also includes what some call the upper middle class. Many people who actually work, professionals, etc. fit into that description.

[cali]

29. sure, but anyone making 200k a year

is in the top 5% of earners. And there are people making a million bucks a year who work every day.

[leftofthedial]

46. I'm just saying "wealthy" has connotations that might not correspond

to the data. Some might think of the top 5% or 2% or 1% or a fraction thereof. Their opinions and an understanding of the problem you are addressing would vary accordingly.

[KharmaTrain]

26. You Always Resent What You Don't Have...

I've been on both sides...living off dumpster diving and having a couple extra bucks in my pocket. Needless to say, I prefer the money than not having it, but that isn't the measure of one's life...and if it is, then it's been a sad, narrow life.

It's not the money, but how one uses it that also matters. Some of our greatest Democrats were filthy rich...Roosevelt and the Kennedys, but their money didn't mean a thing if there wasn't a propsering economy that reached out to all. Almost every town has a museum or library or some other valuable local asset that was created by local money...or setting up and maintaining social services.

I was once told of two types of rich...those who have money and talk about it and those who have money and value the rest of their lives more...one uses money as an end, the other uses it as a means to share life with others.

The rub is with the repugnican "philosophy" of rich...it's more about being selfish and feeding one's ego. It's not just that they can and should make all they can, but that they should give nothing back in return...as though they are privilidged strictly on their net worth. If I had wanted that life, I'd be a repugnican, too...thank goodness I spent years living on the lean side...it makes one appreciate what one has so much more.

Cheers...

[Odin2005]

27. I think one must distinguish between the "merely" rich and the mega-rich

The merely rich, the millionaire with a successful small business, for example, are not the problem. It is the super rich, who use their money to manipulate markets and corrupt governments, that are the problem.

And in my mind you are not rich until you make at the very least $500,000 per year, I would call people that make between $200,000 and $500,000 "upper middle class".

[Cleita]

28. Again I must reiterate that income does not make wealth.

You can accumulate a high income by saving part of it and converting it into wealth, but when you go to get your will made, it will be determined by your financial statement or what you own. What you own is determined from real estate, savings, stocks and bonds, gold, expensive jewelry, art work, automobiles, yachts etc. Also depreciation schedules are set up for assets like automobiles and yachts. If the person owes a business, the worth of the assets and ownership are considered part of the wealth.

People with high incomes can live like rich people as long as they are getting that high income, but if the source of income dries up then that person can become a pauper overnight. For that reason income is never considered wealth.

[JuniperLea]

76. See my other post here...

I personally know four billionaires who supported the Obama campaign to the maximum allowable amount, who regulary give millions away to charities.

Not all mega wealthy people are bad people, any more than any other segment of the population are all anything else.

[harun]

33. Don't equate income with wealth. It isn't the same.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

34. $200,000 is rich, not wealthy.

If we're using 200K as a benchmark, that is. Plus, we don't know how the truly wealthy voted if they're lumped in with the 200K/year people.

It's entirely possible that those between 200K and, say, 500K, voted for Obama, while those above 500K went to McCain.

[mondo joe]

35. Some judge other people for being poor, some judge other people for being wealthy.

I'm still going with thinking of people as individuals.

[IMPERIUM V]

58. Society does not consist of individuals

but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand.

[RayOfHope]

36. Wha'ts the upper cutoff though? What about say, those over $900K or a mil?

I agree we shouldn't condemn all those with money, but I'd like to see the stats broken down a bit more.

[Romulox]

37. Logic problem with the OP:

"More of those with incomes over $200,000 a year voted for Obama than McCain. In other words, they voted against their ostensible, immediate economic interests. "

The second sentence does not necessarily follow from the first. In fact, I think it far more logical to assume that the $200,000+ a year crowd felt that the Democratic Party best represented their economic interest (for example, the Democratic leadership enthusiastically supported the TARP.)

In other words, it is far more reasonable to conclude that the Democratic Party has been "gentrified", and now represents the interests of the $200,000+ set, perhaps even to the exclusion of the interests of the middle and lower classes (once again, see the TARP vote...)

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

38. I'm not an expert

nor am I quarreling with your data, but I'd like to point out there is a big difference between wealth and income..........

[Greyhound]

43. No, they voted to continue their lifestyles after seeing that they are not immune to

what has been done. They are worried that if things continue on this course they will be brought down to our level.

The really rich, those who don't have to worry about any temporary income fluctuations, couldn't care less which of their selections is in the Big Chair. He will do their bidding.

[leftstreet]

44. How is voting pro-corporate, pro-imperialism against their interests?

Have people not been paying attention to the tran$formation of the Democratic party the pa$t few year$?

:shrug:

[deaniac21]

45. You also have to realize that the wealthy are going to contribute

to the front runner, no matter what their political philosophy...

[Fire1]

47. I agree, cali and I've seen it first hand. Anything else just sounds

like 'player hating' or sour grapes. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

[blindpig]

56. It is the disparity in wealth that is the crime.

It is not a matter of hating the people, it is a matter of hating an economic system which allows such disparity.

That so many of the too well off have turned to the Democratic Party is damning. Some party of the common people.....

[alfredo]

57. My beef is with those who see themselves as part of a ruling class, as

some sort of royalty endowed with money and power by God, and entitled to the perks and deference enjoyed by royals.

[Evoman]

59. Just because someone votes for Obama, it doesn't prevent them from being an asshole.

Just wanted to add that. Not saying anything about rich people in particular.

I just don't automatically add every person who votes for Obama into my "not a bad person" list.

[Mike 03]

64. Cali, Nice Post. Probably you will get eviscerated for it.

Just speaking generally, the people close to me who are fortunate enough to have means gave a total of more than three thousand dollars to Obama, which is about what they could afford given their other committments, which are charitable. A lot of people who have been blessed enough to have money in this lifetime are very satisfied to just get by, and keep a low profile, and get huge enjoyment from giving. So, they are not altruistic--they enjoy giving and get something out of that.

Not one of them voted for McCain. I can assure anyone of that.

And if anyone is still under the delusion that wealth makes a person happy, I can tell you that according to the people I know who have been both poor who became wealthy, or were lowere middle class and became wealthy, that notion is a charade, especially in these times. There is no such thing as rich unless you are actually making a million bucks or more a year.

I suspect people who make the kind of money we are talking about were heavily invested in the markets, and you can pretty much be assured they have lost a third to a half of their wealth.

[IMPERIUM V]

70. Can't eviscerate what lacks viscera in the first place. n/t

[JuniperLea]

80. I am the 47,380,745th richest person in the world according to your link

That's only because of the millions of people who have zero income.

I'm finding the cali bashing amusing... you really don't get her at all.

[IMPERIUM V]

116. It's also because of the 3 billion people who live on less than $2 a day

See?

[truedelphi]

72. I feel the same way you do. n/t

[madokie]

66. I know both rich people and people who are well off

the rich ones are the ones who are well off and are assholes. big dif

[Mike 03]

67. Someone very close to me worked on Wall Stree most of his adult life

He did not cash out or make a fortune. His job was to analyze the health of banks. He was fortunate enough in that he was able to send three children to college, but he never lived in million dollar homes or anything like that. And he lost colleagues in nine eleven who didn't make that kind of money either. He came from a struggling family, a father who lost his mind mixing chemicals for a now famous company, a mother who worked at a department store that is now out of business, and he studied literature at Berkeley, joined the Navy, went through the Cuban Missile Crisis, married his high school sweetheart.

He became a journalist and began to cover banks, and was lucky enough to catch the eye of someone at "American Banker." His analysis of banks was so good that he caught the eye of a firm that specialized in analyzing banks.

He went onto to work for larger firms.

He got up at four in the morning and communited hours by train, and worked twelve hour days, and came home by train. Sometimes we didn't see him from dawn to dusk.

We didn't live lives of luxury. We lived comfortably (but I'm sure he didn't, because I'm sure he was fretting how the hell he was going to put three kids through college during a recession) but not luxuriously.

Some people have a delusional idea of anybody who has anything to do with banks or money.

[davekriss]

68. I saw more Obama signs...

...in the wealthy neighborhoods in my locale. I mean in neighborhood where housing is $1 million and up. When driving through the lower-middle class nieghborhoods, I saw mostly McCain-Palin signs. I can't understand that.

[Jakes Progress]

69. The wealthy that you describe

aren't the ones waging the class war. It is the rich. Read David Cay Johnson's book "Perfectly Legal"

Those in the $200K to $400K class are getting screwed too. The super rich have successfully conducted a war on you and me for the last thirty years.

[alittlelark]

95. Thank You for that. We make around $200K, donated

the max to Obama and a few other D's. Here in Silicon Valley where the houses are all over 600K, most in the millions around here - 200K is not Rich.

[holograms r us]

71. But it wasn't against their interests to vote for a Democrat!

Look it up: the market does better with a Dem at the helm. So they were voting for their interests. But I don't hate people who happen to have money.

[JuniperLea]

73. I personally know four billionaires...

Who donated the maximum allowable amount to the Obama campaign. They each give well over a million to charities, one in particular gives over a billion a year. I know, because I used to help her spend her philanthropic account monies.

Not all wealthy people are greedy, not all wealthy people are Republicans, not all wealthy people are (insert anything you care to here).

No matter how you care to divide society, there are idiots, greedy assholes, and wonderful people in each group.

[SoCalDem]

74. There are two "types" of "wealthy people")

Greedy bastards who only want more more more more

and

people who willingly share with others..


Guess which ones have usually been "in charge" of law-making:(

[rhett o rick]

81. Yes there are the two types, but when it comes to push and shove and the

class war, who's side are they all on?

[SoCalDem]

86. "All" are not on ANY side

the generous ones were probably generous when they were poor

and the stingy ones were probably greedy when THEY were poor

The ones who were "always" rich, are probably a mix of both..

[rhett o rick]

109. Excuse me please. But I don't understand the point. We are in a class war.

and we are getting our butts kicked. To say that all those on the other side are not all bad is irrelevant to me. That's like saying that some Germans during WWII, the big one, were sympathetic to the plight of the Jews. Ok, but so what?

[rhett o rick]

79. So this is a post about what we shouldn't do. So tell us Cali, what should we do.

We are in a class war and my side is losing. It's a war Cali. Every day we lose another battle. Bless Obama but I don't think he can fight the ruling class of this country. We are being bled dry, and you are worried that we mite "blame" someone that doesn't deserve it. When it comes to choosing sides, who's side do you think they will choose?

[onenote]

82. well, since Obama is a member of the class that supposedly is at war with you

did you support him?

[rhett o rick]

91. First, do I understand that you don't recognize the class war?

To answer your question, yes I supported him with a lot of energy. He wasn't my first choice, nor my second choice, but he is a hell of a lot better than the alternative. You see, I will continue to fight until I am dead. But, please, if you don't recognize the class war, please look around. Look at the homeless families, some living with their children in tents. Look at all the unemployed and uninsured and under insured. While the wealthy rape the middle class how can you say you don't see it. Now they are stealing on the order of tens of trillions.

[onenote]

94. I recognize that there is class war. But I also recognize that which side of the battle lines

you are on is not necessarily determined by your income or assets. There are people who are not well of that oppose efforts to make the distribution of wealth in our society more equitable. And those of considerable means who have been champions of those without.

[SammyWinstonJack]

83. I never used to have anything against the rich, they weren't on my radar.

I was neither envious of them nor did I sing their praises. I just didn't care about them one way or another. :shrug: These past 8 yrs have turned me against them. Screw 'em!

And btw the Obamas aren't exactly poor. True, they are not as rich as McCain and his heiress wife but they are not poor.

Their combined income is over 200k and has been for awhile now, right? They have benefited from the bu$h tax cuts these past 8 yrs, have they not?

[nichomachus]

85. Well, you're doing some serious lumping together yourself

$200K a year doesn't make you necessarily "wealthy." It may make you a little better off than a lot of other people, but it's not what most people mean when they talk about "the wealthy." More precisely, it's not what I mean when I talk about "wealthy."

"Wealthy" is when you can write a check for $11 million to buy a vacation home, one of several that you own. (The CEO of Starbucks did that in our town. He paid cash.) "Wealthy" is when you can fly all over the world in your private jet at a moment's notice and stay in hotel rooms that cost $3,000 a night. "Wealthy" is when you can spend $200K on a weekend of golf. Wealthy is when you sell your vacation home with the Rolls included, because you have three or four others and don't need it.

You're not doing that on $200K a year. I consider $200K on the upper end of middle class (and I don't make anywhere near that -- just for the record).

The notion that "wealth" starts at $200K a year is just a smokescreen to hide the upper echelon that considers less than $5 million a year a slap in the face.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

87. Most people with incomes from $200K to $1M or so are not the ruling class

I know a few who think they are (they tend to work in financial services) but they're not. Most of the rest seem to be well-educated professionals who vote Dem because they are socially liberal, environmentally conscious, and know that a good safety net is imperative to a functioning society. They mostly vote Dem (unless they are religious) because they are mostly rational people. Unfortunately, like I said, they are NOT the ruling class. The truly rich and powerful, as the adage goes, are not like you and me.

If you want some insight into what makes them tick, because I don't have the time or room to describe it in this reply, I highly recommend Jeff Sharlet's The Family. As the subtitle says, it's about the secret religious order that is at the heart of American power. Now, I'm not a conspiracy theorist by any stretch of the imagination, nor do I think that every extremely wealthy or powerful person is part of this cabal. I can say that it really clued me in to how these people think and why they do what they do.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?r=1&ISBN=9780060559793&ourl=The%2DFamily%2FJeff%2DSharlet&cds2Pid=17351&popup=0

[BlooInBloo]

90. The higher-resolution concept "enlightened self-interest" can be useful in this context.

[FloridaJudy]

93. Not all the rich are pigs

The decent ones - like Warren Buffet - are willing to pay more in taxes to insure that all Americans get a decent break. Unfortunately, too many of them subscribe to the "I've got mine, and fuck the rest of you" philosophy. Most of those are Republicans.

BTW, $200,000 is what I would consider "well off" but it's not the uber-rich. I'd be thrilled to make that much - and if I did I wouldn't balk in the least at paying a lot more in taxes - but that would barely pay the mortgage for a nice two bedroom place in many US cities: that's not the penthouse and a six bedroom summer home class. I wouldn't be in the least surprised if a number of DU members were in the $200,000 bracket. I just wish more of us were.

[bertman]

102. Excellent observations, Cali.

[wildeyed]

114. My dad makes 200k+ per year.

He would never in a million years vote for Bush or McCain. He also has an interesting take on taxes. He says the government invested in him through public education and later student loans and grants (his parents had very little money when he was growing up). Now they are reaping the rewards of a good investment through his tax contribution. He is also generous with his charitable contributions.

[Chemical Bill]

118. What about the top 1%?

$200,000 is chump change to some.

Bill

[TheKentuckian]

122. 200k is doing well for your self but it ain't rich

and rich sure isn't wealthy.
Shaq is rich the man the writes his check is wealthy (thanks to Chris Rock). We now have a number of billionaires the ultra wealthy are in the same weight class as middle of the road nations. In this situation to even pay much attention to those that make under 750k-1M is myopic. The vast majority of these folks work everyday. They might be in the Professional Class or successful small business owners and quite comfortable in most cases but these people aren't the enemy.

In my opinion our biggest opposition is the greedy stupids who THINK they will be rich but currently don't have much more than a pot to piss in (ex. SammiJo the Stooge).
It is class warfare but it is the evil non-plurality of the rich, wealthy, and possibly even the uber-wealthy that get the upper middle class suburbanites and the moran masses in a coalition that is the problem. We've never once had a set back that the "rich vote" caused us. Their money may have great influence but its broke fools like us that make the shit rain down.

I've known far too many poor, working (especially this group), and middle class greedy fuckbags to even pretend that the blame for the problems caused by greedy fuckbags are the responsibility of only the ones with resources.
Maybe they are mislead, misguided, and lack the juice but they sure as hell enable and empower most of crap that comes down the pipe.

[lumberjack_jeff]

127. High income and "wealthy" are two different things.

Someone with a high income is still a worker. Those with wealth enrich themselves by the labors of others, and delude themselves into thinking that it's a partnership.

[Fumesucker]

130. I find the thrust of this post most amusing coming from someone who said an entire nation made them

"Want to puke".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4656148&mesg_id=4659471

[bread_and_roses]

131. The personal attributes of individuals are irrelevant

So some people making $200K are this and others are that. So what? Some of the mega-wealthy perform public service and contribute to charity and some don't. So what? Neither action in and of itself alters the system. (Charity, in fact, perpetuates an unjust system but that's another discussion.)

At issue is a system that transfers wealth from many to the few, that honors and reward capital above labor, that gives capital rights that labor does not have, and imposes responsibilities on labor from which capital is exempt.

However "good" the person making $200K is, the system still rewards him/her at 100x the migrant laborer down the road harvesting the food s/he'll eat. And George Soros may fund an after-school program but his wealth is still built upon the pyramid of cheap labor and exploitation and oppression that creates the wealth from which he scatters his largesse.

The system is the real enemy, and nothing changes until we change it. Cut off the head of one individual, and another springs up to take his/her place. But, it is naive not to recognize that with every dollar one makes, one increases the degree to which one is invested in the system. To suppose that those making $200K p/yr will perceive their intersts to be the same as those making $20K p/yr is, I think, naive - however much they donated to Obama.

[dugaresa]

135. people who have to work to pay for their home/healthcare are not wealthy

if losing your job means you may have to sell your home then you are not wealthy.

The well-heeled or wealthy are those who can afford not to work. Those who have inherited money or those who made so much money (hedge fund criminals for example) that they can live off the fumes of that income for years to come and probably leave their heirs well off too...

Now a couple earning $200K a year is doing very well, no matter where they live, however the key to them becoming wealthy is for them to store away cash for a rainy day and to pay off their home.

I will not begrudge someone their salary, however I won't feel terribly bad if someone made really good money all their life and didn't put a dime of it away for later and I won't feel bad for someone who earned their income illegally and ends up in jail.

There are corrupt people at all levels. Both the rich and poor steal, however when the rich steal it is just beyond the pale normally in terms of the way they go about it and the amounts they take.

What saddens me lately is how callous the folks who have been messing up the market have been. They just didn't care. What makes a person so corrupted in their soul that they would perhaps continue to take money from charities, pensions..etc and deep down know that they are going to leave those folks messed up? Is it the money that corrupted them? Or were they like that to begin with?